OSHA Inspection: TILECO, INC.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with employees working on platforms with unprotected sides or edges.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees using fixed ladders to access work platforms and the access points are left unprotected against an employee stepping back through them and falling to the ground more than 4 feet below.  Instances include but are not limited to:      i.   On a daily basis employees using the fixed industrial ladder to access the mixer in plant #1 where the unprotected ladder access leaves a fall hazard of 8 feet.    ii.  On a daily basis employees using the fixed industrial ladder to access the mixer in plant #2 where the unprotected ladder access leaves a fall hazards of 7 and 16 feet respectively.     iii. On a daily basis employees using the fixed industrial ladder to access the mixer in plant #1 where the unprotected ladder access leaves a fall hazard of 8 feet.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Sep 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, the identity of the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed, and the date the hazard assessment was done:    The employer failed to certify that hazard assessments for each position throughout the company were conducted.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees performing various tasks whereby requiring personal protective equipment or guarding to protect them from potential respiratory, electrical, struck by and caught between hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Sep 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,240 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:(a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION/CONDITION) (DESCRIBE HAZARD)    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with requiring to have employees wear tight fitting respirators to perform duties throughout the facility.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees wearing respirators as they perform various tasks without having developed a written respiratory program that outlines the need for respirators, requirement for a medical evaluation as well as annual fit testing.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:(a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION/CONDITION) (DESCRIBE HAZARD)Note:  The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator.    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with requiring employees to wear tight fitting respirators without having provided them a medical evaluation to determine if wearing a respirator would be potentially hazardous to their health.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees wearing respirators as they perform various tasks without first having had them evaluated by a medical professional to determine as to whether or not they can wear the respirators without causing injury or illness to themselves.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with requiring employees wear tight fitting respirators to perform duties throughout the facility.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees wearing respirators as they perform various tasks without having conducted annual fit testing to ensure the assigned respirators fit properly.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:    The employer failed to protect employees from confined space hazards associated with unmarked permit required confined spaces.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees working in a facility with permit required confined spaces without having marked those spaces so as to notify all employees of the potential hazards.  Instances include but are not limited to:      i.  The mixer in plant #1.    ii. The mixer in plant #2.    iii. The mixer in plant #3.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:(a)(LOCATION)(SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS)     The employer failed to protect employees from confined space hazards associated with employees entering permit required confined spaces without having developed a written entry program.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees entering permit required confined spaces without having developed and implemented a permit required confined space entry program.  Instances include but are not limited to:         i.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #1 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).   ii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #2 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).   iii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #3 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(4): The employer did not provide the equipment specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)-(d)(4)(ix) of this section at no cost to employees, did not maintain that equipment properly, and/or did not ensure that employees use that equipment properly:    The employer failed to protect employees from confined space hazards associated with employees entering permit required confined spaces without having the necessary equipment as outlined in this subpart.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees entering the mixers in all three plants, all of which are permit required confined spaces without having provided the entrants with all the necessary equipment to conduct the entry.  Instances include but are not limited to:      i.   Employees entering the mixers without any rescue equipment on or available, such as a body harness and lanyard.    ii.  Employees entering the mixers without having a testing device designed to check air quality prior to entry.    iii. Employees entering the mixers without having provided a ladder as means of access and egress.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5)(i): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not evaluate permit space conditions when entry operations were conducted by testing conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions exist before entry is authorized to begin:     The employer failed to protect employees from atmospheric hazards associated with employees entering permit required confined spaces without having conducted testing prior to entry.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees entering the mixers in all three plants, all of which are permit required confined spaces without having conducted any atmospheric testing to determine if there were any potential respiratory hazards present.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #1 every day to clean out the mixer without having tested the atmosphere for potential respiratory hazards.      ii.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #2 every day to clean out the mixer without having tested the atmosphere for potential respiratory hazards.  iii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #3 every day to clean out the mixer without having tested the atmosphere for potential respiratory hazards.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(6): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not provide at least one attendant outside the permit space into which entry was authorized for the duration of entry operations:       The employer failed to protect employees from confined space hazards associated with employees entering permit required confined spaces without having an attendant posted at the entry point.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees entering the mixers in all three plants, all of which are permit required confined spaces without having posted an attendant at the entrance throughout the duration of the entry.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #1 every day to clean out the mixer without having an attendant posted at the entrance.    ii.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #2 every day to clean out the mixer without having an attendant posted at the entrance.   iii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #3 every day to clean out the mixer without having an attendant posted at the entrance.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(e)(1): Before entry was authorized, the employer did not document the completion of measures required by 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(3) by preparing an entry permit:      The employer failed to protect employees from confined space hazards associated with employees entering permit required confined spaces without filling out a written permit.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees entering permit required confined spaces without having developed and implemented a permit system.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees entering the mixer in plant #1 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).  ii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #2 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).  iii. Employees entering the mixer in plant #3 every day to clean out the mixer at the end of the day without meeting any of the requirements for a permit required confined space entry as outlined in 1910.146(d).

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $3,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential caught between and electrical hazards associated with performing maintenance on equipment without having developed written specific procedures for the isolation of stored and hazardous energy.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees performing maintenance repairs on equipment that requires lockout and/or tag without having developed, written and trained on any specific procedures outlining the step by step shut down and isolation of the stored or hazardous energy.  Instances include but are not limited to:        i.  Employees locking out and performing maintenance and cleaning on the Columbia 1600 block machine on the day of the inspection without having access to a written specific procedure.    ii. Employees locking out and cleaning the mixers in all three plants every day without having access to a written specific procedure.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees:    The employer failed to provide adequate training on the written procedures necessary when performing maintenance on equipment requiring lockout and/or tag out as the means of isolating hazardous or stored energy.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer does not have a formal training process that ensures all facets of lockout and/or tag out are trained, leaving inadequately trained employees to apply lockout and tag out principles as part of their daily duties.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees locking out and performing maintenance and cleaning on the Columbia 1600 block machine on the day of the inspection without having access to a written specific procedure.    ii. Employees locking out and cleaning the mixers in all three plants every day without having access to a written specific procedure.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D): Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee applying the device(s):     The employer failed to protect employees from potential caught between and electrical hazards associated with performing lockout or tag out on equipment with locks and tags that do not identify who applied them and when.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees applying locks in support of lockout of equipment in maintenance without having developed a system of marking or identifying the locks thus leaving the potential for confusion or misunderstanding from another employee or management who finds the equipment locked out and cannot identify who the lock is protecting.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees locking out and performing maintenance and cleaning on the Columbia 1600 block machine on the day of the inspection with an unmarked lock.    ii. Employees locking out and cleaning the mixers in all three plants every day with an unmarked lock.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,200 · Current $3,360 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates or markings were not maintained in a legible condition:     The employer failed to protect employees from struck by hazards associated with operating a powered industrial truck with an illegible data plate.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating the Allis Chambers forklift in plant #2 to move pallets of materials throughout the facility with an illegible data plate leaving employees no way to access the maximum capacities of the truck.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(3)(i)(M): Powered industrial truck operators did not receive initial training in the following topics to include but not limited to operating instructions, warnings, or precautions listed in the operator�s manual for the types of vehicle that the employee is being trained to operate:   The employer failed to protect employees from potential struck by hazards associated with operating a forklift that is missing a seat belt.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating the Allis Chambers forklift to move material throughout the facility, the fork lift is missing a seat belt thus exposing the employee to potential additional injuries in the event of an accident.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:  The employer failed to protect employees from struck by hazards associated with operating a powered industrial truck without having performed an adequate inspection of the forklift prior to use.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating forklifts throughout the facility without having developed a system that ensures the forklifts are inspected prior to use and damage or broken equipment is removed from service and reported to maintenance for repairs, creating hazardous conditions whereby forklifts with damage or broken equipment are being used daily.  Instances include but are not limited to: i.   Employees operating the Allis Chambers forklift with an illegible data plate thus leaving the operators without necessary capacity information. ii.   Employees operating the Allis Chambers forklift without a seatbelt. iii.  Employees operating the Clark 33 forklift with a hole in the fork.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,920 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    The employer failed to protect employees from point of operation hazards associated with operating unguarded equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating various components of the Columbia 1600 concrete block making line with inadequate guarding.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees operating the block machine without guarding; the block machine is an automated hydraulic machine with similar actions of a mechanical press.   ii. Employees operating the automated Columbia Splitter line without guarding; the splitter is an automated hydraulic machine that applies pressure from two sides to split larger blocks into smaller blocks.   iii. Employees operating the manual Columbia Splitter without guarding; the splitter is a manual fed and operated hydraulic machine that applies pressure from above against the table below to split larger blocks into smaller blocks.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4): Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:     The employer failed to protect employees from point of operation hazards associated with operating incorrectly set up equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating a bench grinder to sharpen tools with a tool rest that was adjusted to greater than one eighth of an inch.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:  The employer failed to protect employees from point of operation hazards associated with operating incorrectly set up equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees operating a bench grinder to sharpen tools with a tongue guard that was adjusted to greater than one fourth of an inch.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven -7 feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed:    The employer failed to protect employees from point of operation hazards associated with operating inadequately guarded equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees working along the sides of chain conveyors throughout the facility where the chain/sprocket locations were not guarded.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.   Employees working near the chain conveyor system for the strapping machine and the sprockets on the right side have been left unguarded.   ii.   Employees working near the chain conveyor system for the wrapping machine and the sprockets on both the left and right sides have been left unguarded.  iii.  Employees working near the chain conveyor system for the block machine and cuber in plant #1 and the chain/sprockets have been left unguarded.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $2,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(ii): The required working space about electric equipment rated 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground, shall not be used for storage:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential electrical hazards associated with employees working near or accessing blocked electrical panels.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has employees applying locks to breakers and attempting to access electrical panel boxes that are either partially blocked or obstructed by equipment and other materials being stored in front of them.

Issued

Jul 8, 2013

Abate by

Aug 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer's prior written approval:  The employer failed to protect employees from struck by hazards associated with operating a powered industrial truck with modifications that change the performance of the vehicle.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 91-209 Hanua St. Kapolei, HI 96707, where the employer has hole in the fork of their Clark 33 forklift that was not drilled out when it was made nor has the employer established from the manufacturer that the hole does not affect the performance of the forklift as employees use it to move heavy pallets of concrete blocks or other materials throughout the facility.